DOCSLIB.ORG

What Is Brexit?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What Is Brexit? Carleton University Centre for European Studies Jean Monnet Project Studying EU in Canadian High Schools www.carleton.ca/ces/EULearning Use is free of charge. Source must be acknowledged if materials are distributed. Teacher’s Handout – Background to Brexit Key Concepts: . What is Brexit? . What was Britain’s relationship with the EU before Brexit? . Why did Britain vote in favour of a Brexit? . What are the implications of Brexit? . What will the Brexit negotiations look like? . What does Brexit mean for Canada? What is Brexit? The term ‘Brexit’ is a joining of two words; Britain, and Exit. The term is used to describe the act of the United Kingdom (UK) leaving the European Union (EU). A similar term was used earlier during the Eurozone Crisis in 2014 when it was contemplated that Greece might leave the Eurozone, called ‘Grexit’. However, Grexit did not become a reality while Brexit did. Brexit was decided through a referendum held on 23 June 2016. The population voted 51.89% to 48.11% to leave the EU. Voter turnout was relatively high with 72% of eligible voters casting their ballots.1 Even though the referendum was non-binding, the British government had promised to implement the result. On 29 March 2017, Theresa May, the UK Prime Minister, officially initiated the withdrawal process.2 So why was there a referendum? The answer stems from the 2015 UK national election. Then- Prime Minister David Cameron promised that if he was re-elected he would hold a referendum on the UK’s EU membership.3 This campaign promise was made in response to growing Euroscepticism within the UK as well as the rise of the populist far-right party the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). However, many politicians, including UKIP leaders, did not think that the population would vote to leave the EU. Thus, the result came as a great shock to many both in the UK and the EU. What was Britain’s relationship with the EU before Brexit? While the UK was not an original member of the EU, it did eventually join in 1973.4 Almost immediately there was a membership referendum in the UK since some politicians were unhappy 1 BBC News, “EU Referendum Results,” https://www.bbc.com/news/politics/eu_referendum/results. 2 BBC News, “Brexit: Article 50 has been triggered – what now?” 29 March 2017, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk- politics-39143978. 3 Rishi Iyengar, “These 3 Facts Explain Why the U.K. Held the ‘Brexit’ Referendum,” The Times, 24 June 2016, http://time.com/4381184/uk-brexit-european-union-referendum-cameron/. 4 Ibid. The Jean Monnet Project is supported in part by a grant from the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union. Carleton University Centre for European Studies Jean Monnet Project Studying EU in Canadian High Schools www.carleton.ca/ces/EULearning Use is free of charge. Source must be acknowledged if materials are distributed. with the terms with which the UK joined the EU. However, 67% of the population voted to remain.5 The UK has always had an arms-length relationship with the EU and other European countries. They opted out of joining the Eurozone and the Schengen Area, even though all new member states must join them eventually. Also, there have been calls within the UK to leave the European Court of Human Rights. In addition, many UK prime ministers have negotiated for preferential treatment within the EU, such as getting a rebate of membership funds and being exempt from certain aspects of EU treaties. Euroscepticism has been growing within the UK since 1993 when the Maastricht Treaty came into effect and the EU was officially created.6 UKIP was formed at this time along with a similar party calling themselves the Referendum Party. Eurosceptic parties primarily utilise nationalism in the face of growing European integration to foster fear and questioning of the EU. This was especially seen when the EU expanded to include several eastern European countries in 2004. These countries were formerly communist and poorer than the other member states, and there was a lot of fear that citizens of those countries would undergo a mass migration to western Europe, including the UK. More recently, EU crises such as the Eurozone and migrant crisis have shown the weaknesses of EU institutions. By garnering fear towards aspects of the EU that allow this, such as the Single Market and the passport-free Schengen Area, these parties have encouraged Euroscepticism within the British population and have forced politicians to ask for concessions from the EU in order to appease these groups. Why did UK citizens vote to leave the EU? The result of the Brexit referendum came as a shock to many and sparked debates over why the UK would choose to leave the EU. Many attribute this result to the rise of far-right and Eurosceptic political parties, such as UKIP, in the UK. During the Brexit campaign the ‘Vote Leave’ party appealed to white, rural, working class males by arguing that leaving the EU would mean more jobs for Britons, more money for the National Healthcare System (NHS), and less immigration to the UK.7 They also argued that by leaving the EU the UK will regain its ‘independence’ over its laws and borders. The ‘Vote Remain’ camp, led by David Cameron, based their arguments around the economy. While the UK may not have complete control over their laws and borders, staying in the EU would strengthen the economy and be more beneficial in the long run. However, it has been argued that 5 Ibid. 6 Toby Helm, “British Euroscepticism: a brief history,” The Guardian, 7 February 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/07/british-euroscepticism-a-brief-history. 7 Vote Leave Take Control, “Why Vote Leave,” http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html. The Jean Monnet Project is supported in part by a grant from the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union. Carleton University Centre for European Studies Jean Monnet Project Studying EU in Canadian High Schools www.carleton.ca/ces/EULearning Use is free of charge. Source must be acknowledged if materials are distributed. the ‘Vote Remain’ campaign did too little to convince the population that staying in the EU is the better option since they were so confident that the British people would vote in their favour.8 It has also become known that many British citizens who voted to leave the EU did so without understanding the consequences. Several people voted out of protest of the current government, many were confused about the referendum or did not understand what the EU is or what it does.9 This has brought forward more debates over the efficacy of referendums and whether they should be used to make such important political decisions, especially if the population is uneducated about the issues at hand. This has highlighted an EU-wide issue of EU citizens who do not understand the EU, what it does, and why it is a good thing. The EU has been working hard to create more widespread understanding of the Union within its member states in order to avoid the misinformation spread by Eurosceptic parties. What are the implications of Brexit? The implications of Brexit were felt almost immediately after the result was announced. Prime Minister Cameron stepped down the day after the referendum and deputy Prime Minister Theresa May took over. The British currency (the pound, £) decreased in value and international stocks and currencies fell in response to the result. There were widespread protests and a call for a new referendum within the UK and Scottish politicians began arguing for a new independence referendum since Scots overwhelmingly voted in favour of remining in the EU. It was also reported that the day after the referendum the most Google-searched question in the UK was “what is the EU?”10 More long-term implications of Brexit are extremely complicated. The UK negotiates a so called ‘divorce bill’ with the EU to ensure that they can leave on good terms. From Prime Minister May’s initiation of the withdrawal in March 2017, the UK will have two years to negotiate this bill. If they do not complete this task by March 2019, the UK will be completely cut off from the EU and will have to negotiate a new agreement.11 There are two different ‘types’ of Brexit which the country might choose: hard or soft. A soft Brexit would entail the UK staying inside the EU’s Single Market, which allows for the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour, while a hard Brexit would keep the UK out of the Single Market. Theresa May and her Conservative Party are in favour of a hard Brexit; however, a final decision has not yet been made.12 One of the major reasons the UK voted to leave the EU was for more control over their borders, however the issue of whether the UK should maintain soft or hard borders after Brexit has 8 Rafael Behr, “How remain failed: the inside story of a doomed campaign,” The Guardian, 5 July 2016. LINK 9 Ibid. 10 Zane Schwartz, “What were Google’s most frequent U.K. searches after Brexit?” Maclean’s, 24 June 2016, https://www.macleans.ca/politics/worldpolitics/what-were-googles-most-frequent-searches-after-brexit/. 11 BBC News, “Brexit: Article 50 has been triggered – what now?” https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39143978. 12 Georgina Downer, “The choice between hard or soft Brexit,” The Interpreter, 8 March 2018, https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/choice-between-hard-or-soft-brexit.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report of an Investigation in Respect Of
    Report of an investigation in respect of - Vote Leave Limited - Mr Darren Grimes - BeLeave - Veterans for Britain Concerning campaign funding and spending for the 2016 referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU 17 July 2018 1 Other formats For information on obtaining this publication in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Electoral Commission. Tel: 020 7271 0500 Email: [email protected] The Electoral Commission is the independent body which oversees elections and regulates political finance in the UK. We work to promote public confidence in the democratic process and ensure its integrity. 2 Contents 1 Introduction..................................................................................................... 4 2 The decision to investigate ............................................................................. 9 3 The investigation .......................................................................................... 12 4 The investigation findings ............................................................................. 16 Joint spending by Vote Leave and BeLeave ................................................... 16 Vote Leave’s spending limit ............................................................................. 21 Other issues with Vote Leave’s spending return ............................................. 24 BeLeave’s spending ........................................................................................ 25 Mr Grimes’ spending return ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit: Where Is the EU–UK Relationship Heading?
    Simon Hix Brexit: where is the EU–UK relationship heading? Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Hix, Simon (2018) Brexit: where is the EU–UK relationship heading? Journal of Common Market Studies. ISSN 0021-9886 (In Press) DOI: 10.1111/jcms.12766 © 2018 University Association for Contemporary European Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/89976/ Available in LSE Research Online: August 2018 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. The JCMS Annual Review Lecture 2018 Brexit: Where is the EU-UK Relationship Heading?1 Simon Hix London School of Economics and Political Science 1 I would like to thank Angus Armstrong, Catherine Barnard, Theofanis Exadaktylos, Anand Menon, Jonathan Portes, Brendan O’Leary and Simon Usherwood for their helpful comments on an earlier version.
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit Jargon Buster
    Brexit Jargon Buster Brexit Jargon Buster • 1 2 • Brexit Jargon Buster AAgencies European Union agencies regulate a number of regimes for goods and services; the European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki regulates chemicals and biocides; the European Medicines Agency, formerly in London is now relocated in Amsterdam responsible for the scientific evaluation, supervision and safety monitoring of medicines in the EU; the European Aviation Safety Agency. AIFMD The Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive. This EU Directive regulates the managers (AIFMs) of alternative investment funds (AIFs). AIFMD includes passporting rights (see separate definition) for EU AIFMs to market funds across the EU. The Directive also contains provisions allowing non-EU AIFMs to become part of the passporting regime by way of a ‘third country passport’ (see separate definition) which may, in the future, provide a means for UK AIFMs to retain passporting rights post-Brexit. Competition law Competition laws of the EU are set out in the TFEU. They are a very important aspect of the single market. The European Commission is tasked with developing policy and enforcing the law ensuring that the European Union remains free from business practices that could ultimately be harmful to competition and consumers. In doing so, the Commission works with national competition authorities which are obliged also to apply EU competition law as well as domestic law. Particular emphasis is placed on ensuring businesses do not enter into anti-competitive agreements or abuse dominant positions in markets; the consequences of doing so can be severe. Brexit Jargon Buster • 3 The European Commission also assesses very large mergers and state aid.
    [Show full text]
  • Goldilocks and the Tiger
    HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO Goldilocks and the Tiger: Conceptual Metaphors in British Parliamentary Debates on the British Exit from the European Union Marja Arpiainen Master’s Thesis English Philology Department of Languages University of Helsinki November 2018 Tiedekunta/Osasto – Fakultet/Sektion – Faculty Laitos – Institution – Department Humanistinen tiedekunta Kielten laitos Tekijä – Författare – Author Marja Arpiainen Työn nimi – Arbetets titel – Title Goldilocks and the Tiger: Conceptual Metaphors in British Parliamentary Debates on the British Exit from the European Union Oppiaine – Läroämne – Subject Englantilainen filologia Työn laji – Arbetets art – Level Aika – Datum – Month and year Sivumäärä– Sidoantal – Number of pages Pro gradu -tutkielma Marraskuu 2018 92 s. + 5 liitettä (yht. 43 s.) Tiivistelmä – Referat – Abstract Tutkielma keskittyy metaforien käyttöön Ison-Britannian parlamentissa maan EU-jäsenyydestä järjestetyn kansanäänestyksen kampanjoinnin aikana keväällä 2016. Tarkempana tutkimuskohteena on kampanjan molempien osapuolten, sekä EU-jäsenyyttä tukevan että eroa puoltavan, metaforinen kielenkäyttö. Sitä tarkastelemalla tutkimus pyrkii esittämään kampanjaryhmien mahdollisesti käyttämiä narratiiveja, jotka tukevat näiden ryhmien näkemyksiä Euroopan unionista sekä Ison-Britannian mahdollisesta erosta. Tavoitteena on myös pohtia yleisemmällä tasolla tämän tapauskohtaisen esimerkin kautta, kuinka vastakkaisia tavoitteita ajavat kampanjaryhmät hyödyntävät metaforia diskurssissaan. Tutkimus pohjaa Lakoffin ja Johnsonin vuonna
    [Show full text]
  • The Roots and Consequences of Euroskepticism: an Evaluation of the United Kingdom Independence Party
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Scholarship at UWindsor University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor Political Science Publications Department of Political Science 4-2012 The roots and consequences of Euroskepticism: an evaluation of the United Kingdom Independence Party John B. Sutcliffe University of Windsor Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/poliscipub Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Sutcliffe, John B.. (2012). The roots and consequences of Euroskepticism: an evaluation of the United Kingdom Independence Party. Geopolitics, history and international relations, 4 (1), 107-127. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/poliscipub/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Political Science at Scholarship at UWindsor. It has been accepted for inclusion in Political Science Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Geopolitics, History, and International Relations Volume 4(1), 2012, pp. 107–127, ISSN 1948-9145 THE ROOTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF EUROSKEPTICISM: AN EVALUATION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM INDEPENDENCE PARTY JOHN B. SUTCLIFFE [email protected] University of Windsor ABSTRACT. This article examines the causes and consequences of Euroskepticism through a study of the United Kingdom Independence Party. Based on an analysis of UKIP’s election campaigns, policies and performance, the article examines the roots of UKIP and its, potential, consequences for the British political system. The article argues that UKIP provides an example of Euroskepticism as the “politics of oppo- sition.” The party remains at the fringes of the political system and its leadership is prepared to use misrepresentation and populist rhetoric in an attempt to secure sup- port.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Leave Vote
    Understanding the Leave vote Author: Kirby Swales Acknowledgements: Thank you to the following people who assisted in the production of this report: Allison Dunatchik, Anne Summers, Curtis Jessop, Ian Simpson, John Curtice, Leigh Marshall, Martin Wood, Matt Jonas and Sean Willmott. With thanks also to UK and a Changing Europe and ESRC for funding this project. NatCen Social Research 35 Northampton Square London EC1V 0AX Tel. 020 7250 1866 Fax. 020 7250 1524 E-mail: [email protected] www.natcen.ac.uk Cover photo: BTN/LMUG photowalk. 2012. © Flickr/Betsy Weber Contents 1 Summary 2 2 Introduction 3 Data sources 3 3 Background 4 The rise of Euroscepticism 4 What tipped the balance? 5 4 The demographics of the vote 7 Objective characteristics 7 Subjective characteristics 7 5 The policy issues at stake 13 Which issues were most important in the Referendum? 13 Did views on the EU vote match wider policy concerns? 14 The EU vote in the context of general political attitudes 15 6 The politics of the vote 19 The role of ‘new’ voters 19 Understanding turnout 19 How did political allegiance influence the vote? 20 Did the public know where MPs stood? 21 7 Segmenting the population 25 8 Conclusions 27 Notes and references 28 NatCen Social Research: Understanding the Leave vote 1 1 Summary Identity politics played a role The Leave victory was not about objective demographics alone. Matters of identity were equally, if not more strongly, associated with the Leave vote – particularly feelings of national identity and sense of change over time. Voters not persuaded by arguments about economic risks The Leave campaign resonated more strongly with the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit: Initial Reflections
    Brexit: initial reflections ANAND MENON AND JOHN-PAUL SALTER* At around four-thirty on the morning of 24 June 2016, the media began to announce that the British people had voted to leave the European Union. As the final results came in, it emerged that the pro-Brexit campaign had garnered 51.9 per cent of the votes cast and prevailed by a margin of 1,269,501 votes. For the first time in its history, a member state had voted to quit the EU. The outcome of the referendum reflected the confluence of several long- term and more contingent factors. In part, it represented the culmination of a longstanding tension in British politics between, on the one hand, London’s relative effectiveness in shaping European integration to match its own prefer- ences and, on the other, political diffidence when it came to trumpeting such success. This paradox, in turn, resulted from longstanding intraparty divisions over Britain’s relationship with the EU, which have hamstrung such attempts as there have been to make a positive case for British EU membership. The media found it more worthwhile to pour a stream of anti-EU invective into the resulting vacuum rather than critically engage with the issue, let alone highlight the benefits of membership. Consequently, public opinion remained lukewarm at best, treated to a diet of more or less combative and Eurosceptic political rhetoric, much of which disguised a far different reality. The result was also a consequence of the referendum campaign itself. The strategy pursued by Prime Minister David Cameron—of adopting a critical stance towards the EU, promising a referendum, and ultimately campaigning for continued membership—failed.
    [Show full text]
  • Recruited by Referendum: Party Membership in the SNP and Scottish Greens
    Recruited by Referendum: Party membership in the SNP and Scottish Greens Lynn Bennie, University of Aberdeen ([email protected]) James Mitchell, University of Edinburgh ([email protected]) Rob Johns, University of Essex ([email protected]) Work in progress – please do not cite Paper prepared for the 66th Annual International Conference of the Political Science Association, Brighton, UK, 21-23 March 2016 1 Introduction This paper has a number of objectives. First, it documents the dramatic rise in membership of the Scottish National Party (SNP) and Scottish Green Party (SGP) following the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence. The pace and scale of these developments is exceptional in the context of international trends in party membership. Secondly, the paper examines possible explanations for these events, including the movement dynamics of pre and post referendum politics. In doing so, the paper outlines the objectives of a new ESRC- funded study of the SNP and Scottish Greens, exploring the changing nature of membership in these parties following the referendum.1 A key part of the study will be a survey of SNP and SGP members in the spring of 2016 and we are keen to hear views of academic colleagues on questionnaire design, especially those working on studies of other parties’ members. The paper concludes by considering some of the implications of the membership surges for the parties and their internal organisations. The decline of party membership Party membership across much of the Western world has been in decline for decades (Dalton 2004, 2014; Whiteley 2011; van Biezen et al.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brexit from Britain Or Europe? an Assessment of Identifications with Europe Among British Expats Living in the Netherlands
    A Brexit from Britain or Europe? An assessment of identifications with Europe among British expats living in the Netherlands Theodore P Stell 5783755 MA International Relations in Historical Perspective GKMV16017 MA Thesis June 2019 A Brexit From Britain or Europe? Theodore P Stell (Cover Photo: Source – Creative Commons) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to my supervisor Marloes Beers for all of her academic guidance; as well as a very big thank you to Eli van Dantzig, for all of his help, motivation and mind-mapping, from the project’s very beginnings right to its end, especially during the many hours of proofreading. I must of course thank all of my British expat interview participants. This project really would not have been possible without you. I thank you for your time and hope that my words reflect your stories well and may also offer interesting new perspectives. Page 2 of 218 A Brexit From Britain or Europe? Theodore P Stell ABSTRACT The majority of studies concerning the UK’s Brexit have focused on its impacts on the UK domestic population. However, Brexit is much more than a domestic issue; it is also a unique occurrence in EU history that a member state leaves the EU for the first time. For the 785,000 British expatriates living in the continental EU, Brexit entails the first ever en-masse loss of European citizenship. This may consequent a choice between Britain and Europe, between national and supranational identities. European identity has long been contested, but if expats from the most Eurosceptic EU member state come to feel more European than British, Brexit may prove to be a litmus test for the existence of just such a European identity.
    [Show full text]
  • Electoral Revolutions : a Comparative Study of Rapid Changes in Voter Turnout
    ELECTORAL REVOLUTIONS : A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF RAPID CHANGES IN VOTER TURNOUT by ALBERTO LIOY A DISSERTATION Presented to the Department of Political Science and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy September 2020 DISSERTATION APPROVAL PAGE Student: Alberto Lioy Title: Electoral Revolutions: A Comparative Study of Rapid Changes in Voter Turnout This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Political Science by: Craig Kauffman Chairperson and Advisor Craig Parsons Core Member Erin Beck Core Member Aaron Gullickson Institutional Representative and Kate Mondloch Interim Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School. Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded September 2020. ii © 2020 Alberto Lioy iii DISSERTATION ABSTRACT Alberto Lioy Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science September 2020 Title: Electoral Revolutions: A Comparative Study of Rapid Changes in Voter Turnout In the political science scholarship on democratic elections, aggregate voter turnout is assumed to be stable, and depends upon an acquired habit across the electorate. Large turnout variations in a short period of time are therefore usually attributed to negligible contextual factors. This work establishes that such variations are more frequent than commonly thought and creates a novel theoretical framework and methodological approach for systematically studying rapid changes in voter turnout across Western Europe and Latin America. I attribute dramatic changes in voters’ participation, labeled electoral revolutions, to transformations in the party system competition and institutional credibility happening inside the national political context.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Guide Euroscepticism
    Information Guide Euroscepticism A guide to information sources on Euroscepticism, with hyperlinks to further sources of information within European Sources Online and on external websites Contents Introduction .................................................................................................. 2 Brief Historical Overview................................................................................. 2 Euro Crisis 2008 ............................................................................................ 3 European Elections 2014 ................................................................................ 5 Euroscepticism in Europe ................................................................................ 8 Eurosceptic organisations ......................................................................... 10 Eurosceptic thinktanks ............................................................................. 10 Transnational Eurosceptic parties and political groups .................................. 11 Eurocritical media ................................................................................... 12 EU Reaction ................................................................................................. 13 Information sources in the ESO database ........................................................ 14 Further information sources on the internet ..................................................... 14 Copyright © 2016 Cardiff EDC. All rights reserved. 1 Cardiff EDC is part of the University Library
    [Show full text]
  • Challenger Party List
    Appendix List of Challenger Parties Operationalization of Challenger Parties A party is considered a challenger party if in any given year it has not been a member of a central government after 1930. A party is considered a dominant party if in any given year it has been part of a central government after 1930. Only parties with ministers in cabinet are considered to be members of a central government. A party ceases to be a challenger party once it enters central government (in the election immediately preceding entry into office, it is classified as a challenger party). Participation in a national war/crisis cabinets and national unity governments (e.g., Communists in France’s provisional government) does not in itself qualify a party as a dominant party. A dominant party will continue to be considered a dominant party after merging with a challenger party, but a party will be considered a challenger party if it splits from a dominant party. Using this definition, the following parties were challenger parties in Western Europe in the period under investigation (1950–2017). The parties that became dominant parties during the period are indicated with an asterisk. Last election in dataset Country Party Party name (as abbreviation challenger party) Austria ALÖ Alternative List Austria 1983 DU The Independents—Lugner’s List 1999 FPÖ Freedom Party of Austria 1983 * Fritz The Citizens’ Forum Austria 2008 Grüne The Greens—The Green Alternative 2017 LiF Liberal Forum 2008 Martin Hans-Peter Martin’s List 2006 Nein No—Citizens’ Initiative against
    [Show full text]